Good videos, with context.
Why was Biden's win calculated to be ONE IN A QUADRILLION?

Why was Biden's win calculated to be ONE IN A QUADRILLION?

Stand-up Maths
1 HN recommenders · discussed 2020–2024
Open YouTube ↗

About this video

Matt Parker of Stand-up Maths examines the Texas Supreme Court filing claiming Biden's 2020 win had a one-in-a-quadrillion chance. He walks through why the statistical argument is flawed.

Why it appears in the archive

Cited as a mathematician's debunking of numerical claims of 2020 election fraud.

AI-generated summary and labels from the source dataset; verify important details against the video. Source & credits.

From the Hacker News discussion

nitrogen · 2020-12 · rec

I am replying for the sake of the hidden sibling comment: I don't watch any major media coverage of politics, but a mathematician and comedian I follow on YouTube (from a different country who presumably has no horse in the race) has analyzed some of the numerical allegations of fraud: - [VIDEO] - [LINK] - [LINK]

Read original comment ↗
nick238 · 2024-08 · reference

There were some pretty shit analysises of the 2020 US elections that Matt Parker covered with videos like "Why do Biden's votes not follow Benford's law?"[1] and "Why was Biden's win calculated to be 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000?"[2]. I don't know about other countries, but the amount of data that every county in every US state produces makes systematic fraud pretty much impossible. If there's literally only 3 numbers produced by the Venezuelan government, you need to be seriously incompetent to have detectable fraud because techniques like Benford's or Zipf's law need lots of individual numbers. [1]: [LINK] [2]: [VIDEO]

Read original comment ↗
ehsankia · 2021-01 · critical

> Can you link me to those majority of cases? [LINK] [LINK] And this third one just shows how much of a joke some of the claims in the lawsuits are: [VIDEO] Like, this is basic high school level statistics they can't even get right.

Read original comment ↗